NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

February 1997

Schools and Staffing Survey

1993–94 Schools and Staffing

Survey: A Profile of Policies

and Practices for Limited

English Proficient Students:

Screening Methods, Program

Support, and Teacher Training

U. S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 97-472
2

U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Marshall Smith

Acting Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting,

analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills

a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the

condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses

of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in

improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign

countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent,

reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely,

useful, and high quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other

education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is

appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in

communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or

any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments

to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208–5651

February 1997

Contact:

Peggy Quin

(202) 219-1743
A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students iii

Table of Contents

PAGE

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Acknowledgments .......................................................... v

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Introduction ............................................................... 1

Data Source and Methodology ................................................. 3

Results ................................................................... 5

What is the distribution of LEP students across the nation’s K–12 public schools? ..... 5

What screening methods do public schools use to identify LEP students? ........... 9

What proportion of public schools provide (1) English as a second language

and/or (2) bilingual education programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

What proportion of LEP students receive special instruction in public schools? . . . . . . 13

What percentage of public school instructors with LEP students in their classes have

received training in LEP instruction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Appendix A: Tables of Standard Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Appendix B: Denominators for Tables 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix C: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
iv A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

List of Tables

Table 1. Total number and percentage of public schools with LEP students and total

number and percentage of students enrolled, by state: 1993–94 ............ 6

Table 2. Total number and percentage of public schools with LEP students and total

number and percentage of students enrolled, by selected school characteristics:

1993–1994 ...................................................... 8

Table 3. Percentage of public schools using each screening method to identify LEP

students, by selected school characteristics: 1993–1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 4. Percentage of public schools with LEP students providing ESL or bilingual

education programs, by selected school characteristics: 1993–1994 . . . . . . . . 12

Table 5. Percentage of LEP students receiving different kinds of instruction, by selected

school characteristics: 1993–1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 6. Number and percentage of teachers teaching LEP students, by selected school

characteristics: 1993–94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 7. Percentage of teachers with LEP students who have received training for

teaching LEP students, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94 . . . . . . . . . 18

List of Figures

Figure 1. Total number of LEP students, by region: 1993–1994 .................... 7

Figure 2. Percentage of public schools reporting LEP student enrollments, by urbanicity,

school size, and percent minority enrollment: 1993–1994 ................. 9

Figure 3. Percentage of public schools using each instructional method to teach LEP

students: 1993–94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students v

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all those who contributed to the production of this report. Among

the American Institutes for Research staff, special mention goes to Don McLaughlin for advice

and review, to Chuck Keil for programming assistance, to Shannon Daugherty and Susan

Mansfield for editorial contribution, to Marianne Perie for her helpful comments, and to Mary

Anne Arcilla and Grace Wu for administrative assistance.

We are very grateful to the comments and suggestions of reviewers at NCES: Dan Kasprzyk

and Marilyn McMillen, Survey and Cooperative Systems Group; Edith McArther and Elvie

Hausken, Data Development and Longitudinal Studies Group; Mike Cohen, Statistical

Standards and Services Group; Sharon Bobbit, Office of Reform, Assistance, and

Dissemination; and outside NCES: William Velez, University of Wisconsin; Jeff Rodamar,

Office of Policy and Evaluation Services; Delia Pompa, Office of Bilingual Education and

Minority Languages Affairs; Eileen Hanrahan, Program/Legal Team, Office for Civil Rights;

and John Chapman and Tom Corwin, Budget Services, Office of the Under Secretary.
vi A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students
A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students vii

Highlights

P According to the 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, over 2.1 million public school

students in the United States are identified as limited English proficient (LEP) students.

They account for 5 percent of all public school students and 31 percent of all American

Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic students enrolled in public

schools.

P LEP students are concentrated in the West, in urban areas, and in large schools with 750

or more students. Schools with 20 percent or more minority students and 20 percent or

more students receiving “free or reduced-price lunches” are also more likely to enroll LEP

students.

P Schools can use a combination of methods to identify LEP students. The most frequently

reported methods are teacher observation or referral, home language survey or assessment,

and previous student record.

P Seventy-six percent of public schools with LEP student enrollments provide English as a

second language (ESL) programs, and 36 percent have bilingual education programs.

Bilingual education programs are generally implemented in schools with higher

concentrations of LEP students than in schools with smaller numbers of LEP students.

P About one-third of public schools with LEP student enrollments provide both ESL and

bilingual education programs, and 71 percent of all LEP students attend these schools.

Thirteen percent of schools (4,832) enrolling LEP students have neither ESL nor

bilingual programs, and 3 percent of all LEP students (59,373) attend these schools.

P Forty-two percent of all public school teachers have at least one LEP student in their

classes. Only 7 percent of these teachers have classes in which over 50 percent of their

students are identified as LEP.

P Thirty percent of public school teachers instructing LEP students have received training

for teaching LEP students, and fewer than 3 percent of teachers with LEP students have

earned a degree in ESL or bilingual education.
A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 1

Introduction

With over 90 percent of recent immigrants coming from non-English-speaking countries, the

United States is becoming a more racially and ethnically diverse society than ever before

(O’Hare 1992; Martin and Midgley 1994). Furthermore, over the last decade, the population

of Asian/Pacific Islanders and Hispanics grew especially fast. Hispanics are the second largest

minority group in the country, with a 1995 population total of 27 million. High levels of

immigration, coupled with a large representation of young people and high fertility rates

among minority groups, will continue the high growth rate of minority populations (O’Hare

1992). Many native born ethnic group members and new immigrants do not speak English at

home.

The growth of the U.S. non-English-speaking population (including both native born and

immigrants) is contributing to the increase in the linguistic diversity of public school students.

According to a 1990 Census data report, 6.3 million school-aged children (5 to 17 years of

age) spoke a language other than English at home, and almost 2.4 million of these children

did not speak English “very well”; this represents a 28 percent increase from 1980 (U.S.

Department of Commerce 1984, 1993). Similarly, a 1994 U.S. General Accounting Office

(GAO) study reported that about one-half of the limited English proficient (LEP) students

come from native born ethnic groups, while the other half are immigrants from many different

cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Further, many of the LEP immigrant students come to

the United States with little or no formal education (GAO 1994).

A large number of non-English-speaking students have low levels of academic performance in

English; dropout rates for these students are also high (Baker and de Kanter 1983; Bradby,

Owings, and Quinn 1992; Bennici and Strang 1995). On average, LEP students receive lower

grades, score below their classmates on standardized reading and mathematics tests, and are

often judged by their teachers as academic “underachievers” (Moss and Puma 1995). Children

with limited English proficiency have unique educational needs. Providing a high-quality

education to those students is an ongoing challenge for the American education system.

The law requires that LEP students be provided effective instruction that (1) leads to the

timely acquisition of proficiency in the English language and (2) provides equal access to the

mastery of the content knowledge and skills that are being taught to all students. The 1968

Bilingual Education Act, an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(ESEA), signaled a commitment by the U.S. government to address the needs of students with

limited English skills (Crawford 1989). In 1970, the former Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a memorandum (informally known as the

May 25th Memorandum) that explicitly discussed school districts’ responsibilities to provide

equal education opportunities for language minority students, consistent with the Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In January 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Lau v.
Introduction

 The inflation factor (1.95252) used to convert 1997 dollars to 1980 dollars comes from an 1

OMB documentation “Deflators for constant prices, fiscal year 1980.”

 This definition emphasizes four factors: (1) LEP students’ native or dominant language is a 2

language other than English; (2) the extent of difficulty with English is “sufficient”; (3) LEP involves

all aspects of language skills—listening, understanding, speaking, reading, and writing; and (4) whether

unequal educational opportunities exist due to linguistic differences.

 The SASS Public School Questionnaire asked about four types of instruction aimed at: 3

(1) teaching English to non-English-speaking students; (2) maintaining or improving a student’s

fluency in his or her home language; (3) teaching subject matter in the student’s home language; and

(4) providing special instruction for limited English proficient students whose educational attainment

is below the level appropriate for children of their age.

2 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Nichols, upheld the OCR’s May 25th Memorandum as a valid interpretation of the

requirements of the Title VI. Furthermore, OCR has continuously brought attention to bear

upon meeting the needs of language minority students with its Strategic Plan (U.S.

Department of Education 1994; Wilson, Shields, and Marder 1994).

Although Title VII of ESEA provides funds to school districts to help limited English

proficient students that are supplemented with state and local funds, such funding has not

kept pace with LEP student population increases (GAO 1994). For example, the $157

million Title VII appropriation in 1997 is 52 percent less than in 1980 when adjusted for

inflation, while the number of LEP students increased significantly during the same time 1

period.

Currently, only limited nationally representative information is available on LEP students and

the services they receive in U.S. schools. This report provides a descriptive analysis of issues

related to teaching LEP students; as such, it focuses on the policies and practices of public

schools toward LEP students, including screening methods, program support, and teacher

training. The data used are from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), where LEP

students are defined as those “whose native or dominant language is other than English and

who have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English

language as to deny them the opportunity to learn successfully in an English-speaking-only

classroom” (SASS Public School Questionnaire, 12). Specifically, the report examines the 2

following questions:

(1) What is the distribution of LEP students across different types of K–12 public

schools (e.g., school level, size, community type, geographic location)?

(2) What screening methods do public schools use to identify LEP students?

(3) What proportion of public schools provide (1) English as a second language

and/or (2) bilingual education programs? What proportion of LEP students

receive various kinds of instruction in public schools?3

(4) What percentage of public school instructors with LEP students in their classes

have received training in LEP instruction?
A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 3

Data Source and Methodology

Data in this report come from the third round of the nationally representative Schools and

Staffing Survey (SASS), conducted during the 1993–1994 school year by the National Center

for Education Statistics (NCES). SASS is the largest and most comprehensive dataset

available about schools in the United States, as it has gathered a wide range of information on

the characteristics, work, career plans, and attitudes of administrators and faculty, and on the

characteristics of schools and districts across the country.

Designed to provide national- and state-level estimates for public schools, SASS used a

random sample of schools and staff stratified by state, sector, and school level. It included

separate questionnaires for public and private schools, school districts, school administrators,

and teachers. This report draws upon information from the public school and public school

teacher questionnaires.

The 1993–1994 SASS questioned school administrators about LEP students, and included:

(1) how many LEP students were identified by the school; (2) what screening methods the

school used to identify LEP students; (3) what types of programs were provided to address

limited English proficiency; and (4) how many LEP students received different kinds of

instruction. SASS also asked teachers whether any students in their classes were identified as

LEP, and if the teachers had received training to teach LEP students.

Statistical estimates in this report are based on samples, and are, therefore, subject to sampling

errors. Standard errors indicating the accuracy of the estimates are included in Appendix A.

All comparisons of differences discussed in the report are tested for statistical significance at

the "<.05 level, adjusted for the number of simultaneous comparisons (within family

comparisons). Standard errors are computed by using the method of balanced repeated

replication, which takes into account the complex sample design of SASS.
4 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students
A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 5

Results

What is the distribution of LEP students across the nation’s K–12 public schools?

Accurate estimation of students who need special language services and how those students

are distributed among different regions of the country and different types of schools are crucial

to the development of effective policies and program services. According to SASS, there are

over 2.1 million K–12 LEP students in public schools in the United States (table 1).

Consistent with the American ethnic group residential pattern, 82 percent of those students

live in only five states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. More than

40 percent of LEP students are in California, accounting for almost 20 percent of all students

in the state. About 10 percent of students in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas are LEP

students.

Forty-six percent of U.S. public schools report that they enroll at least one LEP student. LEP

students account for 5 percent of all students and nearly one-third of all Asian/Pacific

Islander, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students in public schools.

LEP students tend to be concentrated in specific parts of the country and attend specific types

of schools. Figure 1 illustrates the number of LEP students by geographic region. Half of all

LEP students (over one million) live in the West; about a half-million LEP students are in the

South, while the Midwest has the smallest number of LEP students. More than two-thirds of

Western schools have LEP students enrolled, compared to only one-quarter of Midwestern

schools (table 2). LEP students account for 12 percent of all students in the West, but fewer

than 2 percent of students in the Midwest.

Sixty percent of public schools in urban and suburban areas have LEP students, compared to

31 percent in rural areas (table 2 and figure 2). Close to 1 out of every 10 urban students and

1 out of every 20 suburban students (but only 1 out of every 50 rural students) are LEP

students.

Larger schools are more likely to enroll LEP students. For example, two-thirds of the nation’s

schools with 750 or more students enrolled (i.e., the largest schools) have LEP students,

compared to only 16 percent of the schools with fewer than 150 students enrolled (i.e., the

smallest schools). LEP students also account for a higher proportion of all students in larger

schools. For example, 2 percent of all students in the smallest schools are LEP, compared to

7 percent in the largest schools.
Results

6 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Table 1— Total number and percentage of public schools with LEP students and total number

and percentage of LEP students enrolled, by state: 1993–94

Schools with LEP Students LEP Students

As a % of American

As a % of Indian, Asian, and

State Number Percent Number all students Hispanic students

Total 37,419 46.3% 2,121,261 5.1% 31.1%

Alabama 185 14.5 843 0.1 6.6

Alaska 233 48.7 9,879 7.8 26.1

Arizona 925 87.5 70,959 10.4 28.8

Arkansas 308 28.4 1,377 0.3 16.5

California 6,610 90.3 922,239 19.2 41.0

Colorado 747 56.2 17,344 2.8 13.4

Connecticut 506 52.5 14,409 3.0 28.3

Delaware 106 62.5 1,164 1.1 19.0

District of Columbia 75 47.1 4,447 5.9 85.9

Florida 1,562 66.5 111,821 5.9 40.0

Georgia 593 34.4 10,223 0.9 27.8

Hawaii 226 96.3 11,636 6.7 8.9

Idaho 363 63.5 4,724 2.2 24.0

Illinois 1,281 33.0 54,292 3.1 25.9

Indiana 515 27.5 4,127 0.4 17.4

Iowa 250 16.5 4,374 0.9 24.6

Kansas 229 15.8 4,718 1.1 13.7

Kentucky # # # # #

Louisiana 313 21.6 5,450 0.7 22.7

Maine 175 24.2 804 0.4 24.5

Maryland 589 49.7 8,965 1.2 20.1

Massachusetts 961 56.9 33,364 4.3 35.5

Michigan 1,375 43.5 19,359 1.3 28.0

Minnesota 483 32.4 17,277 2.5 34.3

Mississippi 143 14.9 3,372 0.6 47.8

Missouri 396 19.0 4,605 0.5 17.0

Montana 136 15.3 5,116 2.9 22.1

Nebraska # # # # #

Nevada 260 71.2 13,448 5.8 29.3

New Hampshire 108 24.2 468 0.3 11.9

New Jersey 1,381 62.9 50,101 4.6 25.9

New Mexico 511 77.1 30,296 9.4 16.3

New York 2,697 69.1 200,253 7.7 32.9

North Carolina 927 48.1 13,768 1.3 36.8

North Dakota 98 16.8 2,159 1.9 23.5

Ohio 886 24.4 12,829 0.7 30.2

Oklahoma 680 38.6 16,455 2.8 16.3

Oregon 655 55.3 12,606 2.6 23.8

Pennsylvania 1,064 34.0 16,049 0.9 22.7

Rhode Island 171 58.0 7,017 5.6 43.4

South Carolina 354 32.7 1,669 0.3 13.2

South Dakota # # # # #

Tennessee 299 19.6 2,800 0.3 28.9

Texas 4,568 77.6 325,215 9.7 26.1

Utah 413 61.2 5,856 1.3 15.6

Vermont # # # # #

Virginia 774 45.6 11,376 1.2 20.3

Washington 1,122 62.1 37,416 4.1 25.5

West Virginia # # # # #

Wisconsin 548 27.2 9,290 1.1 16.3

Wyoming 74 17.9 583 0.6 6.2

(#) Too few sample cases for reliable estimates

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–94 (Public School Questionnaire).
322,871

4.4%

520,718

3.5%

1,142,101

12.3%

135,571

1.4%

West

Midwest

South

Northeast

Alaska Hawaii U.S. Total 2,121,261

5.1%

Results

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 7

Figure 1— Total number of LEP students, by region: 1993–1994

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–94 (Public School Questionnaire).

Sixty-two percent of all public schools with 20 percent or more minority student enrollment

(i.e., high-minority schools) have LEP students, compared to 34 percent of schools with less

than 20 percent minority student enrollment (i.e., low-minority schools). LEP students make

up 9 percent of the total enrollment of high-minority schools, compared to 1 percent of lowminority schools. Furthermore, four times as many LEP students attend schools with

20 percent or more students receiving “free or reduced-price lunches” (i.e., schools serving

more economically disadvantaged students), compared to schools with fewer than 20 percent

of students receiving “free or reduced-price lunches” (i.e., schools serving fewer economically

disadvantaged students).
Results

8 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Table 2— Total number and percentage of public schools with LEP students and total number

and percentage of LEP students enrolled, by selected school characteristics:

1993–1994

Schools with LEP Students LEP Students

As a % of American

As a % of Indian, Asian, and

State Number Percent Number all students Hispanic students

Total 37,419 46.3% 2,121,261 5.1% 31.1%

Region

Northeast 7,126 52.2 322,871 4.4 31.0

Midwest 6,285 26.6 135,571 1.4 23.8

South 11,733 44.4 520,718 3.5 27.5

West 12,275 72.3 1,142,101 12.3 34.5

Community type

Urban 11,771 61.4 1,143,229 9.4 35.9

Suburban 13,304 60.7 647,132 4.8 29.6

Rural 12,344 31.1 330,900 2.1 22.9

School type

Elementary 28,373 48.9 1,617,595 6.0 35.5

Secondary 8,092 41.2 480,778 3.5 22.4

Combined 954 31.0 22,889 2.3 20.7

Student enrollment

<150 1491 15.8 16,407 2.1 20.4

150–499 14,583 39.3 392,691 3.2 27.3

500–749 11,483 58.2 567,648 4.7 31.4

>750 9,862 68.1 1,144,516 7.0 32.8

Minority enrollment

<20% 15,154 33.8 160,359 0.8 20.0

>20% 22,265 62.0 1,960,901 9.2 32.6

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 12,404 47.3 270,562 1.7 18.1

>20% 23,462 46.5 1,792,091 7.4 35.2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public School Questionnaire).
31.1

60.7

61.4

68.1

58.2

39.3

15.8

62

33.8

Rural

Suburban

Urban

750

500-749

150-499

<150

20%+

<20%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Urbanicity

School Size

% Minority

>

Results

 These seven methods may not include all the approaches public schools use to identify LEP 4

students, nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive of one another’s use in a school.

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 9

Figure 2— Percentage of schools reporting LEP student enrollments, by urbanicity, school size,

and percent minority enrollment: 1993–1994

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–94 (Public School Questionnaire).

What screening methods do public schools use to identify LEP students?

Schools use various language proficiency screening methods to determine whether students

should be provided with special instructional services. On the SASS public school

questionnaire, school respondents could choose up to seven of the following methods to

describe how their schools identify LEP students: (1) recommendation by parent; (2) teacher 4

observation or referral; (3) home language survey or assessment; (4) written language exam;

(5) oral interview in native language; (6) previous student record; and (7) achievement test

results.

It is likely that most schools use a combination of methods to identify LEP students. The

SASS school questionnaire data, however, do not allow us to estimate which combination is

most commonly used. The highest proportions reported are (a) teacher observation or

referral; (b) home language survey or assessment; and (c) previous student record (table 3).

About two-thirds of the schools report that they use at least one of these three screening

methods. Half of the schools use recommendations by parents, while approximately one-third

employ achievement test results in screening for limited English proficiency.
Results

10 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Table 3— Percentage of public schools using each screening method to identify LEP students, by

selected school characteristics: 1993–1994

Parent Home Oral Achieverecom- Teacher language Language inter- Student ment

School characteristics mendation referral survey exam view record test

Total 50.6% 71.9% 67.6% 41.9% 43.8% 64.3% 30.8%

Region

Northeast 51.9 76.6 56.8 46.2 38.0 64.9 27.4

Midwest 57.6 82.9 47.7 27.5 30.2 64.0 24.2

South 48.0 66.9 69.9 36.9 42.0 64.2 34.5

West 48.8 68.3 81.8 51.5 55.7 64.1 32.7

Community type

Urban 42.8 62.0 75.1 45.5 49.7 63.3 31.0

Suburban 53.8 75.3 67.2 41.0 41.3 63.3 28.7

Rural 54.5 77.6 60.8 39.3 40.7 66.1 33.0

School type

Elementary 51.2 72.0 69.5 40.9 43.3 62.2 28.9

Secondary 48.6 71.5 61.1 46.4 45.9 71.4 36.3

Combined 50.8 72.9 66.4 32.8 39.5 65.5 41.4

Student enrollment

<150 34.7 68.6 61.3 36.0 35.0 55.0 37.4

150–499 52.2 75.5 64.9 38.1 41.3 62.4 29.6

500–749 52.8 72.2 69.9 42.5 44.7 65.5 26.3

>750 48.1 66.8 69.7 47.7 47.6 67.1 37.0

Minority enrollment

<20% 60.1 81.9 51.9 33.7 33.5 63.0 24.1

>20% 44.1 65.1 78.2 47.4 50.7 65.1 35.4

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 59.7 80.8 57.4 37.6 36.9 64.5 29.9

>20% 45.3 66.8 73.1 43.4 47.7 64.0 31.8

NOTE: Schools can choose as many methods as were used. Methods sum to more than 100 percent due to

schools identifying all methods used.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public School Questionnaire).
Results

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 11

The methods used to identify LEP students vary somewhat by region and school type. For

example, urban schools are less likely to rely on parent recommendations than suburban and

rural schools (43 versus 54 and 55 percent, respectively). At the same time, schools with 150

or more students enrolled are more likely to use parent recommendations than schools with

fewer than 150 students enrolled (52, 53, and 48 percent versus 35 percent, respectively).

Low-minority schools and schools serving fewer economically disadvantaged students also

tend to rely on parent recommendations.

Schools in the Northeast and Midwest are more likely to use teacher referrals to screen LEP

students than schools in the South and West. Similarly, suburban and rural area schools, lowminority schools, and schools serving fewer economically disadvantaged students also tend to

use teacher referral to identify LEP students, compared to urban schools, high-minority

schools, and schools serving more economically disadvantaged students. The use of a home

language survey or assessment as a means to identify LEP students is most common in schools

in the West and in urban areas.

What proportion of public schools provide (1) English as a second language and/or

(2) bilingual education programs?

School districts are required by national and state laws to provide English as a second language

(ESL) or bilingual language programs for LEP students who need such services to be able to

participate effectively in the regular instructional program. However, districts have the

flexibility to decide on the educational approach that best meets the needs of their LEP

students. SASS asked whether schools provide one or both of these two programs to LEP

students: (1) English as a second language (ESL), and (2) bilingual education. In SASS, ESL

programs refer to when “students with limited English proficiency are provided with intensive

instruction in English”; bilingual education programs refer to when the “native language is

used to varying degrees in instructing students with limited English proficiency, for example,

transitional bilingual education and structured immersion” (SASS Public School

Questionnaire, 15).

Generally, public schools enrolling LEP students are more likely to offer ESL than bilingual

programs: 85 percent of schools provide ESL programs, while 36 percent offer bilingual

programs (table 4). More than three-fourths of all schools, except schools with fewer than

150 students enrolled, provide ESL programs. The widespread availability of ESL programs

may occur because schools can more readily provide ESL services than bilingual services,

especially when LEP students come from several different language groups. Effectively offering

bilingual instruction requires sufficient numbers of teachers who are bilingual and adequately

trained or certified to teach subject matter in languages other than English, and normally it is

provided when LEP students come from the same language group.

Among schools serving LEP students, the percentage offering bilingual programs is highest (45

to 50 percent) in the West, in urban areas, in low-minority schools, and in schools with fewer

economically disadvantaged students. For example, one-quarter of schools in the Northeast,

compared to half of the schools in the West, have bilingual programs. More than twice as

many high-minority schools offer bilingual programs as low-minority schools.
Results

12 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

However, it should be noted that ESL and bilingual education approaches are not mutually

exclusive and often may be combined in the same school or school district. About one-third

of schools with LEP student enrollments provide both ESL and bilingual education programs,

and 71 percent of LEP students attend these schools. Thirteen percent of schools (4,832)

enrolling LEP students have neither ESL nor bilingual programs, yet 3 percent of LEP students

(59,373) attend these schools (table not shown). For schools offering both ESL and bilingual

programs, SASS Public School Questionnaire data do not permit estimation of the number of

LEP students in both programs or the number of students not participating in any program in

these schools.

Table 4— Percentage of public schools with LEP students providing ESL or bilingual education

programs, by selected school characteristics: 1993–1994

School characteristics ESL programs Bilingual programs

Total 85.2% 35.5%

Region

Northeast 89.7 25.5

Midwest 78.8 29.3

South 82.0 29.4

West 88.9 50.3

Community type

Urban 84.5 45.1

Suburban 88.4 25.7

Rural 82.4 37.0

School type

Elementary 85.7 36.1

Secondary 84.4 32.8

Combined 75.9 43.0

Student enrollment

<150 62.2 35.2

150–499 83.8 34.2

500–749 87.4 33.9

>750 88.2 39.4

Minority enrollment

<20% 82.3 19.5

>20% 87.1 46.5

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 86.6 18.1

>20% 84.1 45.3

NOTE: Schools can provide both ESL and bilingual programs; therefore, the proportions sum to more than 100

percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public School Questionnaire).
Results

 These services are illustrative and do not include all possible instructional approaches. 5

 Bilingual education is not compensatory education. However, some LEP students may also 6

be eligible for compensatory education services.

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 13

What proportion of LEP students receive special instruction in public schools?

SASS asked public school officials to report on four different kinds of instruction LEP students

received:5

(1) instruction aimed at teaching English to non-English-speaking students

(such as English as a Second Language or English for speakers of other

languages); (2) instruction aimed at maintaining or improving the student’s

fluency in his or her home language (such as Spanish language lessons for

Spanish speakers); (3) instruction aimed at teaching subject matter in the

student’s home language (such as teaching math in Spanish); and

(4) instruction for limited English proficient students whose educational

attainment is below the level appropriate for children of their age (such as

Compensatory Education). (SASS Public School Questionnaire, 13) 6

Students may receive all four types of instruction, any combination of the four, or none of

these; however, the data do not permit estimation of what proportion of students receive a

combination of services.

Teaching English to non-English-speaking students can be provided to any LEP student,

whereas bilingual instruction is likely to be provided only with available bilingual teachers and

a concentration of students speaking the same language. Three-quarters of LEP students

receive ESL instruction, compared with one-third to about one-half of these students who

receive other services aimed at (1) improving fluency in their home language, (2) teaching

subject matter in their home language, and/or (3) teaching below age appropriate levels (figure

3 and table 5). Students in high-minority schools and in schools serving more economically

disadvantaged students are more likely to receive some kind of bilingual services than students

in low-minority schools and in schools serving fewer economically disadvantaged students.

Also, students in urban schools are more likely to receive subject matter instruction in their

home language than students in suburban and rural schools.
75.8

37.2

40.3

46.7

Teaching English to ESL students

Improving fluency in home language

Teaching subject in home language

Teaching to below age appropriate levels

0 20 40 60 80

Percent

Results

14 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Figure 3— Percentage of public schools using each instructional method to teach LEP

students: 1993–94

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–94 (Public School Questionnaire).
Results

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 15

Table 5— Percentage of LEP students receiving different kinds of instruction, by selected

school characteristics: 1993–1994

Teaching English Improving Teaching subject Teaching to

School to non-English- fluency in in home below age

characteristics speaking students home language language appropriate levels

Total 75.8% 37.2% 40.3% 46.7%

Region

Northeast 87.4 45.0 47.2 34.2

Midwest 77.2 25.0 35.4 38.8

South 64.5 27.9 32.7 37.2

West 77.5 40.7 42.4 55.4

Community type

Urban 75.1 43.8 48.8 48.3

Suburban 80.5 27.5 27.9 40.5

Rural 69.4 33.3 35.4 53.3

School type

Elementary 77.2 41.7 45.1 51.3

Secondary 71.6 21.9 24.7 31.0

Combined 68.6 38.0 24.8 48.4

Student enrollment

<150 51.8 42.9 29.6 58.7

150–499 70.1 32.1 39.4 50.0

500–749 76.1 38.6 43.9 50.0

>750 78.0 38.1 39.0 43.7

Minority enrollment

<20% 74.6 15.3 18.2 33.8

>20% 75.9 39.0 42.1 47.7

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 75.9 15.8 16.4 26.8

>20% 75.6 41.0 44.8 50.5

NOTE: See text on page 14 for the exact wording of each instruction for columns 1–4. Students may receive

more than one type of instruction; therefore, the proportions sum to more than 100 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public School Questionnaire).
Results

16 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

What percentage of public school instructors with LEP students in their classes have

received training in LEP instruction?

Table 6 shows that 42 percent of public school teachers in the United States (or just over

1 million teachers) report that there are students in their classes identified as having limited

English skills in 1993–94. Seventy-four percent of these teachers report that fewer than

10 percent of their students are LEP, 18 percent report that 10 to 50 percent of their students

are LEP, and 7 percent of teachers report that more than half of their students are LEP. The

distribution of LEP students throughout the nation is related to which teachers have some

LEP students in their classes. At least 50 percent of teachers in the West, in urban areas, in

high-minority schools, and in large schools have LEP students in their classes. In addition,

the highest percentages of classes with over 50 percent LEP students are in schools in the

West, in urban areas, and in schools with 20 percent or more minority student enrollments

and with 20 percent or more students receiving free or reduced-price lunches.

There is almost universal agreement that teacher training and preparation in the subject area

in which he or she is assigned to teach are among the most important characteristics of a

qualified teacher (e.g., Ingersoll 1995). For teachers of LEP students, the information about

such training would include (1) whether teachers teaching LEP students have an academic

degree (bachelor’s, master’s, or Ph.D.) in teaching English as a second language or in bilingual

education, and (2) whether teachers have received training for teaching LEP students.

Information on these aspects of teacher training is important for the simple reason that the

availability of qualified ESL or bilingual teachers may affect decisions about what approaches

school systems reasonably can be expected to adopt for the education of LEP students.

The 1993–94 SASS data reveal that only 2.5 percent of teachers who instruct LEP students

actually have an academic degree in ESL or bilingual education (table 7). Furthermore, only

30 percent of the teachers with LEP students in their classes have received any training in

teaching LEP students. More public schools report that they had vacancies in ESL or

bilingual education positions in 1993–94 than in 1990–91: 25 versus 7 percent. Among these

schools, 26 percent in 1993–94, compared to 37 percent in 1990–91, find it very difficult or

impossible to fill the vacancy (Choy et al. 1993; Henke et al. 1996).

Teachers in schools with higher concentrations of LEP students are more likely than other

teachers to have received training in teaching LEP students. For example, 87 percent of

teachers with classes made up of more than 50 percent LEP students have received such

training, compared to 19 percent of teachers with fewer than 10 percent LEP students. Close

to half of the teachers with LEP students in the West, where half of all LEP students reside,

have received training in teaching LEP students, compared to 12 percent of teachers with LEP

students in the Midwest region, where only 6 percent of LEP students reside. Also, more

teachers instructing LEP students in urban schools, in schools with 20 percent or more

minority enrollments, and in schools with 20 percent or more students receiving free or

reduced-price lunches have received training in teaching LEP students, compared to teachers

in rural schools, in schools with less than 20 percent minority enrollments, and in schools

with fewer than 20 percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches.
Results

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 17

Table 6— Number and percentage of teachers teaching LEP students, by selected school

characteristics: 1993–94

Among teachers with LEP students enrolled

Number of Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of

teachers all teachers teachers with teachers with teachers with

School teaching teaching <10% LEP 10–50% LEP > 50% LEP

characteristics LEP students LEP students students students students

Total 1,067,774 41.7% 74.4% 18.2% 7.4%

Region

Northeast 228,644 44.4 76.4 16.4 7.2

Midwest 188,775 29.5 88.5 9.0 2.5

South 351,269 37.2 78.4 15.1 6.5

West 299,086 65.0 59.1 29.3 11.6

Community type

Urban 320,442 50.9 64.6 23.5 11.9

Suburban 382,535 48.3 78.1 16.4 5.5

Rural 700,217 29.2 84.0 12.2 3.8

School type

Elementary 603,751 40.3 72.4 18.5 9.1

Secondary 351,050 43.2 80.4 15.7 3.9

Combined 23,694 34.7 70.1 22.8 7.1

Student enrollment

<150 18,179 22.3 79.9 14.0 6.1

150–499 268,764 34.2 77.8 16.1 6.1

500–749 270,499 40.7 76.8 15.6 7.6

>750 421,053 49.6 72.5 19.9 7.6

Minority enrollment

<20% 376,945 30.3 93.1 5.2 1.7

>20% 601,549 52.9 64.1 25.3 10.6

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 354,705 39.0 86.8 10.4 2.8

>20% 576,303 42.2 67.5 22.3 10.2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public Teacher Questionnaire).
Results

18 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Table 7— Percentage of teachers with LEP students who have received training for teaching

LEP students, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94

Have earned an academic degree in Have received training for

School characteristics ESL or bilingual education teaching LEP students

Total 2.5% 29.5%

Region

Northeast 3.3 21.5

Midwest 1.0 11.6

South 2.4 29.0

West 3.1 47.3

Community type

Urban 4.4 37.5

Suburban 2.1 28.3

Rural 1.1 20.6

School type

Elementary 3.1 33.0

Secondary 1.7 22.4

Combined 0.8 30.2

Student enrollment

<150 2.9 23.3

150–499 2.5 25.0

500–749 2.9 29.8

>750 2.4 31.7

Minority enrollment

<20% 0.6 15.0

>20% 3.8 38.0

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 1.4 20.0

>20% 3.3 35.1

% LEP students in class

<10% 0.7 19.2

10–50% 2.9 48.3

>50% 19.7 86.7

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public Teacher Questionnaire).
A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 19

Conclusion

Over 2.1 million students in public schools are identified as LEP, accounting for 5 percent of

the K–12 public school students in the United States. Half of all LEP students live in the

West, and more than 80 percent are concentrated in just five states: California, Texas, New

York, Florida, and Illinois. Additionally, LEP students are widely dispersed among public

schools. Close to half of the U.S. public schools report LEP enrollment. Schools that enroll

LEP students vary significantly by geographic region, school size, and minority enrollment.

For example, more than twice as many schools in the West as in the Midwest enroll LEP

students. Larger schools and schools with 20 percent or more minority enrollments also have

more LEP students. Over half of all LEP students attend urban schools and large schools with

more than 750 students enrolled.

Most schools use a combination of methods to identify LEP students. The highest proportions

reported are teacher observation or referral, home language survey or assessment, and previous

student record. About half of the nation’s public schools use parent recommendations.

Achievement test results are the screening device used least often.

Schools may provide both ESL and bilingual programs to LEP students, and students may

receive more than one type of special instruction. Greater percentages of public schools use

ESL programs to improve the English proficiency of LEP students. The ability of a school to

offer bilingual education may be determined by a number of factors, such as whether there is a

concentration of the same language background students in the same class and whether

qualified bilingual teachers are available. Schools with a high concentration of LEP students

are more likely to provide bilingual education.

Forty-two percent of public school teachers have LEP students in their classes, and 74 percent

of these teachers report that fewer than 10 percent of their students are LEP. Three out of 10

teachers instructing LEP students have received training in teaching LEP students, but fewer

than 3 percent of these teachers have received an academic degree in ESL or bilingual

education. However, teachers with high percentages of LEP students in their classes are much

more likely to have received training in teaching LEP students than are teachers in classes

with few LEP students.

The results suggest two contrasting patterns of LEP concentration and school services. A

significant proportion of LEP students are going to school with other LEP students, and the

schools they attend are likely to provide teachers with specific skills to teach them. At the

same time, many LEP students attend schools having few other LEP students. These students

are more likely to be enrolled in schools that do not have teachers with specialized training in

LEP education.
20 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students
A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 21

References

Abramson, R., Cole, C., Jackson, B., and Kaufman, S. 1996. 1993–94 Schools and Staffing

Survey: Sample Design and Estimation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 96–089).

Baker, K.A. and de Kanter, A.A. 1983. Bilingual Education. Lexington, MA: Lexington

Books., D.C. Heath and Company.

Bennici, F. and Strang, W.E. 1995. Special Issues Analysis Center, Annual Report, Year 3,

Volume V: An Analysis of Language Minority and Limited English Proficient Students from

NELS:88. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Bradby, D., Owings, J., and Quinn, P. 1992. Language Characteristics and Academic

Achievement: A Look at Asian and Hispanic Eighth Graders in NELS:88. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES

92–479).

Choy, S.P., Henke, R.R, Alt, M.N., Medrich, E.A., and Bobbit, S.A. 1993. Schools and

Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990–91. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93–147).

Crawford, J. 1989. Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice. Trenton, NJ:

Crane Publishing Company, Inc.

Henke, R.R., Choy, S.P., Geis, S., and Broughman, S.P. 1996. Schools and Staffing in the

United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993–94. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 96–124).

Ingersoll, R. 1995. Teacher Supply, Teacher Qualifications, and Teacher Turnover: 1990–91.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES Report No. 95–744).

Martin, P. and Midgley, E. 1994. “Immigration to the United States: Journey to an

Uncertain Destination.” Population Bulletin, 49:2. Washington, DC: The Population

Reference Bureau.

Moss, M. and Puma, M. 1995. Prospects: The Congressionally Mandated Study of Educational

Growth and Opportunity: First Year Report on Language Minority and Limited English

Proficient Students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
References

22 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

O’Hare, W. 1992. “America’s Minorities—the Demographics of Diversity.” Population

Bulletin, 47:4. Washington, DC: The Population Reference Bureau.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1984. 1980 Census of Population,

Detailed Population Characteristics, United States. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1990 Census of Population,

Social and Economic Characteristics, United States. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. 1994. Strategic Plan, Working Draft,

July 22, 1994.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1994. Limited English Proficiency: A Growing and Costly

Educational Challenge Facing Many School Districts. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

Wilson, C.L., Shields, P.M., and Marder, C. 1994. The Title VII Academic Excellence Program:

Disseminating Effective Programs and Practices in Bilingual Education. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary.
A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 23

Appendix A

Tables of Standard Errors
24 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students
Appendix A

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 25

Table A.1— Standard errors for total number and percentage of public schools with LEP students

and total number and percentage of LEP students enrolled, by state: 1993–94

Schools with LEP Students LEP Students

As a % of American

As a % of Indian, Asian, and

State Number Percent Number all students Hispanic students

Total 479.64 .57 105669.76 .23 .98

Alabama 30.44 2.43 135.04 .02 1.14

Alaska 15.82 3.20 1410.31 1.04 2.84

Arizona 33.82 3.25 7175.99 .99 1.83

Arkansas 31.29 2.85 296.78 .06 3.66

California 124.06 1.43 83899.56 1.61 2.60

Colorado 49.55 3.76 2054.56 .36 1.44

Connecticut 35.90 3.86 3233.21 .69 6.76

Delaware 8.11 4.72 216.62 .21 3.05

District of Columbia 6.12 3.69 882.99 1.15 17.07

Florida 66.87 2.80 14444.32 .74 3.63

Georgia 54.24 3.11 2376.25 .20 4.13

Hawaii 5.06 2.16 1325.97 .64 .80

Idaho 21.58 3.69 758.36 .30 2.77

Illinois 72.92 2.01 9125.72 .51 2.60

Indiana 57.75 3.09 973.79 .10 3.56

Iowa 49.46 3.29 1404.39 .29 6.01

Kansas 38.61 2.65 951.73 .21 1.97

Kentucky # # # # #

Louisiana 26.21 1.83 1096.25 .14 3.48

Maine 22.01 3.01 117.14 .05 3.09

Maryland 31.33 2.62 1080.10 .14 1.41

Massachusetts 64.64 3.96 3517.63 .45 2.16

Michigan 143.05 4.62 6426.79 .42 9.19

Minnesota 53.99 3.62 4113.92 .57 6.06

Mississippi 17.95 1.84 1585.60 .29 24.87

Missouri 63.46 3.05 2346.72 .25 9.37

Montana 17.95 2.00 1331.28 .76 5.24

Nebraska # # # # #

Nevada 12.51 3.14 1672.55 .69 2.30

New Hampshire 17.62 3.96 107.08 .06 3.69

New Jersey 112.29 5.02 10899.70 .84 3.92

New Mexico 26.34 3.94 4457.92 1.20 1.88

New York 151.64 3.81 23185.31 .76 3.48

North Carolina 69.50 3.36 3798.83 .36 10.38

North Dakota 15.68 2.75 424.15 .39 4.66

Ohio 123.02 3.33 5728.03 .31 10.54

Oklahoma 55.59 3.19 1940.67 .35 1.75

Oregon 56.73 4.76 1754.88 .35 3.24

Pennsylvania 140.15 4.47 5284.65 .29 5.75

Rhode Island 13.48 4.47 1216.57 .97 5.25

South Carolina 50.24 4.56 543.86 .08 4.12

South Dakota # # # # #

Tennessee 60.12 3.95 849.91 .10 8.34

Texas 181.45 3.03 41645.43 1.11 2.21

Utah 19.16 2.69 786.68 .16 1.81

Vermont # # # # #

Virginia 84.42 4.88 2510.98 .26 3.19

Washington 64.33 3.56 6004.01 .66 2.91

West Virginia -- 2.44 -- .04 5.67

Wisconsin 68.09 3.34 1806.91 .21 3.15

Wyoming 9.79 2.30 344.97 .32 3.13

(#) Too few sample cases for reliable estimates

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–94 (Public School Questionnaire).
Appendix A

26 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Table A.2— Standard errors for total number and percentage of public schools with LEP students

and total number and percentage of LEP students enrolled, by selected school

characteristics: 1993–1994

Schools with LEP Students LEP Students

As a % of American

As a % of Indian, Asian, and

State Number Percent Number all students Hispanic students

Total 479.64 .57 105669.76 .23 .98

Region

Northeast 227.97 1.61 26081.84 .32 2.20

Midwest 244.89 1.02 12463.07 .12 1.64

South 265.17 1.00 45389.81 .28 1.58

West 174.48 1.00 82457.10 .82 1.79

Community type

Urban 247.56 .99 81336.84 .56 1.45

Suburban 355.66 1.02 72139.46 .47 2.30

Rural 369.71 .88 34183.48 .20 1.50

School type

Elementary 458.61 .73 100151.92 .34 1.41

Secondary 171.05 .73 25506.13 .17 .83

Combined 125.79 3.06 2454.58 .23 1.91

Student enrollment

<150 118.33 1.32 1470.03 .17 1.75

150–499 450.08 .92 39033.20 .30 1.91

500–749 405.21 1.26 55042.36 .45 2.27

>750 436.32 1.38 89175.12 .45 1.40

Minority enrollment

<20% 466.65 .86 11871.49 .06 1.43

>20% 434.60 1.01 105005.33 .43 1.07

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 357.94 .89 16174.70 .09 .95

>20% 472.66 .80 104903.40 .38 1.18

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public School Questionnaire).
Appendix A

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 27

Table A.3— Standard errors for percentage of public schools using each screening method to

identify LEP students, by selected school characteristics: 1993–1994

Parent Home Oral Achieverecom- Teacher language Language inter- Student ment

School characteristics mendation referral survey exam view record test

Total 1.14 .97 .72 1.36 1.30 1.20 1.25

Region

Northeast 3.32 2.09 1.99 3.02 2.39 2.71 2.68

Midwest 2.25 1.87 2.20 2.22 2.22 2.38 1.94

South 1.88 1.69 1.33 2.08 1.88 1.82 1.99

West 2.07 1.76 1.02 2.08 2.29 2.30 1.98

Community type

Urban 1.54 1.52 1.28 2.13 2.57 1.94 1.91

Suburban 1.82 1.84 1.48 1.83 1.98 2.09 1.94

Rural 1.91 1.89 1.60 2.21 1.80 1.96 1.70

School type

Elementary 1.47 1.24 1.07 1.65 1.65 1.56 1.69

Secondary 1.36 1.33 1.11 1.28 1.10 1.28 1.51

Combined 5.57 3.29 4.76 4.16 5.19 4.62 7.22

Student enrollment

<150 4.38 5.37 3.69 4.12 4.39 4.79 4.95

150–499 1.88 1.90 1.93 2.26 2.25 1.93 2.20

500–749 2.07 1.97 1.77 2.78 2.20 2.10 2.06

>750 1.95 1.88 1.37 1.75 1.97 1.65 1.71

Minority enrollment

<20% 2.02 1.79 1.47 1.67 1.74 1.78 1.87

>20% 1.39 1.45 .89 1.86 1.97 1.63 1.36

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 2.00 1.69 1.73 1.54 1.66 1.73 1.88

>20% 1.37 1.46 1.16 1.76 1.73 1.68 1.45

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public School Questionnaire).
Appendix A

28 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Table A.4— Standard errors for percentage of public schools with LEP students providing ESL or

bilingual education programs, by selected school characteristics: 1993–1994

School characteristics ESL programs Bilingual programs

Total .80 .98

Region

Northeast 1.54 1.84

Midwest 2.09 2.01

South 1.23 1.75

West 1.27 2.13

Community type

Urban 1.19 2.03

Suburban 1.43 1.74

Rural 1.20 1.75

School type

Elementary .98 1.24

Secondary 1.13 1.08

Combined 3.64 6.11

Student enrollment

<150 6.29 5.41

150–499 1.30 1.99

500–749 1.53 1.88

>750 1.45 1.89

Minority enrollment

<20% 1.10 1.25

>20% 1.03 1.49

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 1.15 1.01

>20% .99 1.40

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public School Questionnaire).
Appendix A

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 29

Table A.5— Standard errors for percentage of LEP students receiving different kinds of

instruction, by selected school characteristics: 1993–1994

Teaching English Improving Teaching subject Teaching to

School to non-English- fluency in in home below age

characteristics speaking students home language language appropriate levels

Total 1.98 2.54 2.40 2.56

Region

Northeast 3.31 4.72 4.10 4.55

Midwest 3.42 3.81 3.58 4.68

South 4.05 3.99 4.66 4.90

West 2.60 4.09 3.86 3.97

Community type

Urban 2.70 2.90 3.12 3.24

Suburban 3.21 4.40 4.49 5.56

Rural 4.64 4.71 4.57 3.71

School type

Elementary 2.65 3.19 2.90 3.40

Secondary 2.43 1.92 2.01 2.48

Combined 3.98 4.75 2.81 4.02

Student enrollment

<150 5.92 5.73 5.64 4.97

150–499 3.38 3.68 4.36 4.71

500–749 4.96 4.94 5.37 5.32

>750 2.42 3.88 4.02 3.23

Minority enrollment

<20% 3.65 3.68 3.87 3.62

>20% 2.24 2.76 2.56 2.79

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 2.34 1.93 1.95 2.77

>20% 2.33 2.91 2.75 2.96

NOTE: See text on page 14 for the exact wording of each instruction for columns 1–4.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public School Questionnaire).
Appendix A

30 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Table A.6— Standard errors for number and percentage of teachers teaching LEP students, by

selected school characteristics: 1993–94

Among teachers with LEP students enrolled

Number of Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of

teachers all teachers teachers with teachers with teachers with

School teaching teaching <10% LEP 10–50% LEP > 50% LEP

characteristics LEP students LEP students students students students

Total 17433.37 .47 .79 .60 .45

Region

Northeast 7657.35 1.02 1.59 1.29 .70

Midwest 5643.62 .73 .58 .53 .25

South 8315.50 .65 1.07 .89 .51

West 8124.64 .98 1.47 1.21 1.32

Community type

Urban 9618.52 1.07 1.45 1.16 .96

Suburban 11720.04 1.02 1.07 .88 .66

Rural 7628.54 .63 1.06 .87 .43

School type

Elementary 13918.89 .69 1.22 .98 .69

Secondary 7392.15 .46 .73 .58 .22

Combined 1979.83 1.96 3.24 3.78 1.02

Student enrollment

<150 1118.61 1.11 1.56 1.37 .82

150–499 9399.20 .90 1.30 1.02 .72

500–749 10056.07 1.11 1.57 1.03 1.00

>750 18842.25 .91 1.19 .98 .63

Minority enrollment

<20% 9405.61 .54 .54 .47 .18

>20% 16129.62 .76 1.12 .89 .69

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 10587.33 .71 .67 .65 .24

>20% 15261.08 .75 1.17 .96 .73

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public Teacher Questionnaire).
Appendix A

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 31

Table A.7— Standard errors for percentage of teachers with LEP students who have received

training for teaching LEP students, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94

Have earned an academic degree in Have received training for

School characteristics ESL or bilingual education teaching LEP students

Total .17 .65

Region

Northeast .33 1.19

Midwest .13 .66

South .36 .86

West .32 1.47

Community type

Urban .40 1.35

Suburban .25 1.40

Rural .18 1.04

School type

Elementary .28 .99

Secondary .13 .78

Combined .38 3.85

Student enrollment

<150 .96 2.34

150–499 .36 1.40

500–749 .43 1.76

>750 .25 1.20

Minority enrollment

<20% .10 .83

>20% .29 .98

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% .18 .85

>20% .27 1.04

% LEP student in class

<10% .13 .48

10–50% .33 1.71

>50% 1.40 1.25

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–1994 (Public Teacher Questionnaire).
32 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students
A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 33

Appendix B

Denominators for Tables 1 & 2
34 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students
Appendix B

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 35

Table B.1— Total number of public schools, total number of students, and total number of

American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic students, by

state: 1993–94

Total number Total number of American

Total number of public Indian, Asian, and

of schools school students Hispanic students

Total 80,740 41,621,660 6,818,742

Alabama 1,274 745,963 12,868

Alaska 478 127,130 37,905

Arizona 1,057 685,518 246,143

Arkansas 1,084 460,286 8,321

California 7,319 4,804,574 2,247,084

Colorado 1,329 616,434 129,507

Connecticut 964 472,718 50,836

Delaware 169 107,701 6,125

District of Columbia 160 75,948 5,176

Florida 2,348 1,888,762 279,439

Georgia 1,723 1,194,072 36,840

Hawaii 234 173,041 131,461

Idaho 573 218,179 19,700

Illinois 3,884 1,747,678 209,855

Indiana 1,869 972,991 23,751

Iowa 1,518 484,443 17,786

Kansas 1,450 431,981 34,399

Kentucky 1,327 693,316 6,280

Louisiana 1,446 791,318 23,844

Maine 721 207,975 3,283

Maryland 1,185 753,706 44,569

Massachusetts 1,689 776,415 93,999

Michigan 3,159 1,491,699 69,163

Minnesota 1,492 705,021 50,339

Mississippi 957 531,874 7,060

Missouri 2,082 938,836 27,124

Montana 890 175,611 23,105

Nebraska 1,296 248,016 11,296

Nevada 365 231,088 45,881

New Hampshire 445 174,562 3,948

New Jersey 2,195 1,097,841 193,234

New Mexico 663 323,001 186,258

New York 3,904 2,593,562 607,892

North Carolina 1,927 1,090,802 37,365

North Dakota 582 115,635 9,178

Ohio 3,636 1,816,266 42,549

Oklahoma 1,763 579,583 101,207

Oregon 1,184 478,877 52,963

Pennsylvania 3,128 1,805,243 70,765

Rhode Island 295 124,230 16,182

South Carolina 1,081 630,309 12,668

South Dakota 661 139,525 16,290

Tennessee 1,522 840,505 9,690

Texas 5,890 3,342,778 1,244,953

Utah 674 454,114 37,600

Vermont 318 91,787 1,709

Virginia 1,698 958,091 56,063

Washington 1,806 913,048 146,553

West Virginia 898 316,190 2,116

Wisconsin 2,014 880,935 56,983

Wyoming 411 102,484 9,439

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–94 (Public School Questionnaire).
Appendix B

36 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Table B.2— Total number of public schools, total number of students, and total number of

American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic students, by

selected school characteristics: 1993–94

Total number

Total number of American

Total number of public Indian, Asian, and

of schools school students Hispanic students

Total 80,740 41,621,660 6,818,742

Region

Northeast 13,659 7,344,332 1,041,848

Midwest 23,644 9,973,026 568,713

South 26,453 15,001,201 1,894,583

West 16,984 9,303,100 3,313,598

Community type

Urban 19,184 12,163,036 3,185,708

Suburban 21,912 13,559,662 2,188,099

Rural 39,644 15,898,962 1,444,935

School type

Elementary 58,013 26,885,507 4,561,177

Secondary 19,648 13,757,801 2,146,973

Combined 3,079 978,351 110,592

Student enrollment

<150 9,449 792,542 80,537

150–499 37,071 12,449,493 1,438,632

500–749 19,744 11,965,029 1,806,201

>750 14,477 16,414,595 3,493,372

Minority enrollment

<20% 44,825 20,312,294 800,413

>20% 35,915 21,309,366 6,018,329

% of students receiving free

 or reduced-price lunch

<20% 26,207 15,680,804 1,493,153

>20% 50,423 24,178,922 5,091,747

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–94 (Public School Questionnaire).
A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 37

Appendix C

Technical Notes
38 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students
Appendix C

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 39

I. Survey Content

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) consists of four main component surveys

administered to districts, schools, principals, and teachers. These surveys are the Teacher

Demand and Shortage Survey, the School Principal Survey, the School Survey, and the

Teacher Survey.

P The Teacher Demand and Shortage questionnaire has two sections, enrollment and

teaching positions, and district policies. The first section, on enrollment and

teaching positions, obtains information on the number of students, the number of

teachers and librarians, position vacancies, new hires and certification status. The

second section, on district policies, obtains information on teacher salary schedules

and benefits, incentives, hiring and retirement policies, and high school graduation

requirements. Race/ethnicity data on the student population and the teacher work

force are also collected. The corresponding sections for private schools are

incorporated into the Private School questionnaire. The data derived from this

survey permit an assessment of teacher demand and shortage, the estimation of the

number of teachers who hold certification in their field of assignment, and the affect

of various policies on teacher supply and demand balances.

P The School Principal questionnaire obtains information about the age, sex, raceethnicity, training, experience, salary, benefits, opinions and attitudes of school

principals/headmasters. Questions required both objective responses (e.g., number of

years of teaching experience) and judgmental responses (e.g., ranking the seriousness

of school problems). The data derived from this survey provide insight into

qualifications of school principals, which school problems principals view as serious,

and how principals perceive their influence on school policies.

P School questionnaires were sent to public schools and private schools. The private

school version of the questionnaire included items for identifying the religious or

other affiliation of the school. This survey obtained information about schools such

as student characteristics, staffing patterns, student/teacher ratios, types of programs

and services offered, length of school day and school year, graduation and college

application rates, and teacher turnover rates. These data provide information about

the teaching experience of the staff, the sources of newly hired teachers, and the

destinations of teachers who left the school the previous year.

P Teacher questionnaires were sent to teachers in public and private schools. The two

versions of the questionnaire were virtually identical. The survey collected data from

teachers regarding their education and training, teaching assignment, teaching

experience, certification, teaching workload, perceptions and attitudes about

teaching, job mobility, and workplace conditions. This information permits analyses

of how these factors affect movement into and out of the teaching profession.

In addition to these four main components, the 1993–94 SASS featured: (1) similar principal,

school, and teacher components specific to federally funded Bureau of Indian Affairs or

tribally run Indian schools, (2) new components focusing on Library Media Specialists/
Appendix C

 For a detailed description of the sample design, see Abramson et al. 1996. 7

40 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Librarians and Library/Media Centers, and (3) a new student records component. Future

reports will feature data from these new components.

Copies of the questionnaires used in the SASS can be obtained by writing to:

Schools and Staffing Survey Questionnaires

National Center for Education Statistics

555 New Jersey Ave., N.W., Rm. 422

Washington, DC 20208–5651

II. Target Population for SASS

The target populations for 1993–94 SASS were:

P Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that employ elementary and/or secondary level

teachers (for example: public school districts, state agencies that operate schools for

special student populations, such as inmates of juvenile correctional facilities, and

cooperative agencies that provide special services to more than one school district).

P Public and private schools with students in any of grades K–12.

P Principals of those schools.

P Teachers in public and private schools who teach students in grades K–12.

III. Sample Design and Implementation7

A. Sampling Frames

The public school sampling frame was based on the 1991–92 school year CCD, which is a file

of information collected annually by NCES from all state education agencies and is believed

to be the most complete public school listing available. The frame includes regular public

schools, Department of Defense operated military base schools, and special purpose schools

such as special education, vocational, and alternative schools. After the deletion of duplicate

schools, schools outside of the United States, and schools that only teach prekindergarten,

kindergarten, or postsecondary students, there were a total of 82,746 schools on the public

school frame.

B. Sample Selection Procedures

Schools are the primary sampling unit in SASS. Public schools were selected to be

representative at the national and state levels. More detail is available in Abramson et al.

(1996).
Appendix C

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 41

Each selected school was asked to provide a list of their teachers and selected characteristics.

Four percent of the public schools did not provide teacher lists. A factor in the teacher

weighting system was used to adjust for the nonparticipant schools.

C. Sample Sizes

Table C.1 shows the sample sizes and number of interview cases for each questionnaire by

state. The number in sample is the number of in-scope, or eligible, cases. This number

excludes the out-of-scope cases, which are drawn for the sample but are not eligible for

interview. For example, a school which has closed or a teacher who has left the country

would be considered out-of-scope.

The number of interviews is the number of in-scope (eligible) cases minus the noninterview

cases. The noninterview cases include refusals or sample questionnaires with too little valid

data to be considered complete interviews for the survey. The number of interviews is the

actual unweighted number of cases upon which estimates in this report are based. A

nonresponse adjustment is included in the weights to reduce the bias due to nonresponse.
Appendix C

42 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Table C.1— Number of in-scope sample cases and number of interviews, public schools and

teachers: 1993–94 SASS

Public school Public teacher

# in sample # interviews # in sample # interviews

Total 9,532 8,767 53,008 47,109

Alabama 234 224 1,308 1,172

Alaska 197 170 1,022 864

Arizona 206 190 1,229 1,101

Arkansas 164 156 955 863

California 406 352 2,578 2,124

Colorado 176 164 977 868

Connecticut 161 148 832 726

Delaware 71 63 309 268

District of Columbia 65 55 278 197

Florida 243 228 1,291 1,161

Georgia 179 168 924 845

Hawaii 93 85 713 616

Idaho 169 158 969 900

Illinois 254 238 1,284 1,125

Indiana 178 166 1,028 936

Iowa 163 158 975 906

Kansas 162 149 1,026 933

Kentucky 161 149 803 721

Louisiana 224 207 1,079 969

Maine 156 145 897 811

Maryland 167 135 730 646

Massachusetts 222 208 1,508 1,325

Michigan 214 202 1,034 933

Minnesota 172 160 977 910

Mississippi 207 195 1,098 988

Missouri 177 168 990 896

Montana 190 178 1,354 1,249

Nebraska 163 139 830 770

Nevada 123 109 507 431

New Hampshire 121 117 582 521

New Jersey 192 167 1,012 858

New Mexico 173 160 863 771

New York 315 270 1,831 1,460

North Carolina 204 181 1,010 908

North Dakota 123 166 1,179 1,101

Ohio 189 176 999 895

Oklahoma 326 306 1,987 1,740

Oregon 173 159 1,016 909

Pennsylvania 189 169 939 830

Rhode Island 99 88 421 356

South Carolina 162 141 781 701

South Dakota 172 165 1,079 970

Tennessee 187 179 989 888

Texas 406 380 2,498 2,245

Utah 176 174 1,004 928

Vermont 105 97 489 423

Virginia 180 158 845 758

Washington 212 200 1,213 1,065

West Virginia 168 154 926 850

Wisconsin 176 164 1,014 930

Wyoming 136 131 826 748

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–94 (Public School Questionnaire).
Appendix C

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 43

IV. Data Collection Procedures

Data collection operations for the 1993–94 SASS took place during the 1993–94 school year.

Table C.2 depicts both the specific data collection activity and the time frame in which it

occurred.

Table C.2— Data collection time schedule

Activity Date of Activity

Introductory letters mailed to school districts September 1993

Introductory letters and teacher listing sheets mailed to schools October 1993

Census field representatives called school districts to obtain the October 1993

name of a contact person to whom the Teacher Demand and

Shortage questionnaire should be addressed

Lists of teachers provided by schools October – December 1993

First mailing of questionnaires to school districts and school December 1993

principals

First mailing of questionnaires to schools and to teachers January – February 1994

Second mailing of questionnaires to districts and school January 1994

principals

Second mailing of questionnaires to schools and teachers February – March 1994

Telephone follow-up of mail nonrespondents March – June 1994

V. Response Rates

A. Survey Response Rates

Table C.3 provides public response rates by state for schools and teachers. It is useful as an

indication of possible nonresponse bias.

The weighted response rates were derived by dividing the sum of the basic weights for the

interview cases by the sum of the basic weights for the eligible cases. The basic weight for

each sample case was assigned at the time of sampling and is the inverse of the probability of

selection.

Teacher response rates refer to the percentage of teachers responding in schools that provided

teacher lists for sampling. Four percent of public schools did not send in teacher lists. The

effective response rate is calculated by multiplying together the teacher list rate and the

response rate:

Public teachers: .96 x .882 = .8467 x 100 = 84.7% effective response rate
Appendix C

44 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Table C.3— Final weighted public school and teacher response rate, by state: 1993–94

Schools Teachers

Total 92.3% 88.2%

Alabama 95.0 89.6

Alaska 87.7 85.8

Arizona 91.9 89.9

Arkansas 94.2 91.1

California 88.2 81.9

Colorado 92.2 88.0

Connecticut 93.1 88.2

Delaware 88.2 85.9

District of Columbia 85.5 70.9

Florida 94.5 91.1

Georgia 93.9 91.7

Hawaii 92.1 85.7

Idaho 91.7 92.7

Illinois 94.3 86.5

Indiana 93.7 91.3

Iowa 96.1 92.0

Kansas 92.8 90.7

Kentucky 92.1 90.4

Louisiana 90.1 90.6

Maine 91.9 90.2

Maryland 84.8 87.8

Massachusetts 94.2 87.3

Michigan 96.5 89.2

Minnesota 94.8 93.0

Mississippi 93.8 90.5

Missouri 95.3 91.7

Montana 92.4 91.6

Nebraska 89.0 92.2

Nevada 88.3 84.0

New Hampshire 97.6 89.8

New Jersey 87.1 85.7

New Mexico 93.3 90.2

New York 89.3 79.9

North Carolina 89.8 90.3

North Dakota 95.7 93.3

Ohio 92.8 88.7

Oklahoma 94.5 87.2

Oregon 93.0 90.0

Pennsylvania 88.5 88.2

Rhode Island 89.8 84.5

South Carolina 87.3 90.6

South Dakota 95.9 89.4

Tennessee 94.5 89.1

Texas 94.2 89.6

Utah 98.4 91.5

Vermont 93.3 86.2

Virginia 89.3 89.9

Washington 95.8 88.1

West Virginia 92.8 92.0

Wisconsin 93.9 92.5

Wyoming 94.7 91.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,

1993–94 (Public School Questionnaire).
Appendix C

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 45

B. Item Response Rates

The unweighted item response rates (i.e., the number of sample units responding to an item

divided by the number of sample units that participated in the survey) for the SASS ranged

from 75 percent to 100 percent. Table C.4 provides a brief summary of the item response

rates. The item response rates in this table are unweighted and do not reflect additional

response loss due to respondents’ refusal to participate in the survey.

Table C.4— Summary of unweighted item response rates by questionnaire

Survey response rates more than 75%

Range of item rate of 90% or a response rate of less

Percent of items

with a response Percent of items with

School 83–100% 83% 0%

Teacher 75–100% 91% 0%

Table C.5 provides summaries of the unweighted item response rates for the items used in this

report. All item response rates for the items used in this report are above 75 percent.

Table C.5— Unweighted item response rates, School File

Item description Item name Response rate (%)

English as a second language

 Program S1410 98.9

 Students S1415 94.0

Bilingual education

 Program S1420 98.6

 Students S1425 93.0

Free or reduced-price lunch

 Services S1645 98.1

 Students (K and above) S1660 84.1

Teacher training

 Bachelor’s degree T0170 99.7

 Master’s degree T0235 98.9

 Education specialist degree T0285 96.4

 Ph.D./first professional degree T0300 96.4

VI. Imputation Procedures

For questionnaire items that should have been answered but were not, values were imputed by

(1) using data from other items on the questionnaire, (2) extracting data from a related

component of the Schools and Staffing Survey (for example, using data from a school record

to impute missing values on that school’s LEA questionnaire), (3) extracting data from the

sample file (information about the sample case from other sources; for example, the Private
Appendix C

 For a detailed description of the weighting processes, see Abramson et al. 1996. 8

46 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

School Survey or the Common Core of Data, collected in the 1991–92 school year), and

(4) extracting data from a respondent with similar characteristics.

For some incomplete items, the entry from another part of the questionnaire or information

from the sample file was directly imputed to complete the item; for others the entry was used

as part of an adjustment factor with other data on the incomplete record. For example, if a

respondent did not report whether a school offered remedial reading in item 22a of the public

school questionnaire, the response (1 = Yes or 2 = No) for a similar school was imputed to

item 22a of the incomplete record. However, if a respondent had answered “Yes” to item 22a

but had not reported the number of students in the program, the ratio of number of students

in remedial reading to the total enrollment for a similar school was used with the enrollment

at the school for which item 22a was incomplete to impute an entry to item 22a (i.e.,

SCHOOL A item 22a = SCHOOL A ENROLLMENT multiplied by the ratio of SCHOOL B

item 22a to SCHOOL B ENROLLMENT).

Values were imputed to items with missing data for records that had been classified as

interviews (ISR=1). Noninterview adjustment factors were used during the data weighting

process to compensate for data that were missing because the sample case was a noninterview

(ISR=2). For more information about imputation procedures, see Abramson et al. 1996.

VII. Weighting8

Weighting of the sample units from the public sector was carried out to produce national and

state estimates for public schools, teachers, principals, and LEAs. The private sector was

weighted to produce national and association group estimates.

VIII. Standard Errors

Estimates found in the tables of this report are based on samples and are subject to sampling

variability. Standard errors were estimated using a balanced repeated replications procedure

that incorporates the design features of the stratified, clustered sample. The standard errors

provide indications of the accuracy of each estimate. If all possible samples of the same size

were surveyed under the same conditions, an interval of 1.96 standard errors below to 1.96

standard errors above a particular statistic would include the universe value in approximately

95 percent of the cases. Note, however, that the standard errors do not take into account the

effects of biases due to item nonresponse, measurement error, data processing error, or other

systematic error. Estimates with large standard errors (coefficient of variation greater than

30 percent) should be interpreted with caution.
Appendix C

 This represents a change in the definition of teacher from previous administrations of SASS. 9

In 1987–88 and 1990–91, a teacher was defined as any full-time or part-time teacher whose primary

assignment was teaching in any of grades K–12. The prior definition excluded administrators and other

staff who taught regularly scheduled classes but whose primary assignment was not teaching.

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 47

X. Definitions

The following survey terms are defined as they apply to SASS:

Public school. A public school as an institution that provides educational services for at least

one of grades 1–12 (or comparable ungraded levels), has one or more teachers to give

instructions, is located in one or more buildings, receives public funds as primary support, and

is operated by an education agency. Schools in juvenile detention centers and schools located

on military bases and operated by the Department of Defense are included.

Teacher. A teacher is defined as a full-time or part-time teacher who teaches any regularly

scheduled classes in any of grades K–12. This includes administrators, librarians, and other

professional or support staff who teach regularly scheduled classes on a part-time basis.9

Itinerant teachers are included, as well as long-term substitutes who are filling the role of a

regular teacher on a long-term basis. An itinerant teacher is defined as a teacher who teaches

at more than one school (for example, a music teacher who teaches three days per week at one

school and two days per week at another). Short-term substitute teachers and student

teachers are not included.
Appendix C

48 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

Additional Resources on the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

SASS Data Products

The following SASS data products may be obtained free of charge while supplies last from:

U.S. Department of Education

National Center for Education Statistics

SASS Data Products

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Room 422

Washington, D.C. 20208-5651

Reports

P Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality (NCES 96–040)

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile: 1993–94 (NCES

96–124)

P Private School Universe Survey, 1993–94 (NCES 96–143)

P SASS by State, 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Selected State Results (NCES

96–312)

P How Different? How Similar?: Comparing Key Organizational Qualities of American

Public and Private Secondary Schools (NCES 96–322)

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: Selected Data for Public and Private Schools,

1993-94 (E.D. Tab, NCES 95-191)

P Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990–91 (NCES 95–330)

P Teacher Supply in the U.S.: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private

Schools, 1988–1991 (NCES 95–348)

P Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Results from the

1990–91 SASS (NCES 95–735)
Appendix C

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 49

P Teacher Supply, Teacher Qualifications and Teacher Turnover, Aspects of Teacher

Supply and Demand in the U.S., 1990–91 (NCES 95–744)

P The Patterns of Teacher Compensation (NCES 95–829)

P Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup

Survey, 1991-92 (E.D. Tab, NCES 94-337)

P SASS by State (NCES 94-343)

P Private School Universe Survey, 1991-92 (NCES 94-350)

P Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: 1988 and 1991 (NCES

94–665)

P America*s Teachers: Profile of a Profession (NCES 93-025)

P Private School Universe Survey, 1989-90 (NCES 93-122)

P Selected Tables on Teacher Supply and Demand (E.D. Tab, NCES 93-141)

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990-91 (NCES

93-146)

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: Selected Data for Public and Private Schools,

1990-91 (E.D. Tab, NCES 93-453)

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1987-88 (NCES

92-120)

P Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup

Survey, 1988-89 (E.D. Tab, NCES 91-128)

Forthcoming Reports

P Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Results from the

1993–94 SASS

P America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993–94

P The Status of Teaching as a Profession, 1990–91

P The Effects of Professionalization on Teachers: A Multi-Level Analysis, 1990–91

P Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schools: Comparisons

Across Community School, Teacher, and Student Characteristics
Appendix C

50 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

P Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers: Effects of Workplace, Conditions,

Background Characteristics, and Teacher Compensation, 1993–94

P A Profile of Administration Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficiency

Students: Screening Methods, Teacher Training, and Program Support, 1993–94

P Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993–94

P Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools, 1988–94

P Characteristics of Students’ Programs: Results from Their Student Records, 1993–94

P Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup

Survey, 1994-95

P Characteristics of Public School Districts, 1993–94

P School Principals in the United States, 1993–94

Issue Briefs

P Are High School Teachers Teaching Core Subjects Without College Majors or Minors

in Those Subjects? (Issue Brief, NCES 96–839)

P Where Do Minority Principals Work? (Issue Brief, NCES 96–840)

P What Academic Programs are Offered Most Frequently in Schools Serving American

Indian and Alaska Native Students? (Issue Brief, NCES 96–841)

P How Safe are the Public Schools: What Do Teachers Say? (Issue Brief, NCES 96–842)

P Extended Day Programs in Elementary and Combined Schools (Issue Brief, NCES

96–843)

P What Criteria are Used in Considering Teacher Applicants? (Issue Brief, NCES

96–844)

P Private School Graduation Requirements (Issue Brief, NCES 95–145)

P How Much Time Do Public and Private School Teachers Spend in Their Work? (Issue

Brief, NCES 95–709)

P Migration and Attrition of Public and Private School Teachers: 1991–92 (Issue Brief,

NCES 95–770)

P Which Types of Schools Have the Highest Teacher Turnover? (Issue Brief, NCES

95–778)
Appendix C

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 51

P Libraries/Media Centers in Schools: Are There Sufficient Resources? (Issue Brief,

NCES 95–779)

P Who Influences Decisionmaking About School Curriculum: What Do Principals Say?

(Issue Brief, NCES 95–780)

P Public and Private School Principals: Are There Too Few Women? (Issue Brief, NCES

94-192)

P Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools, 1988-91 (Issue Brief,

NCES 94-481)

P What are the Most Serious Problems in Schools? (Issue Brief, NCES 93-149)

P Teacher Salaries—Are They Competitive? (Issue Brief, NCES 93-450)

P Teaching and Administrative Work Experience of Public School Principals (Issue Brief,

NCES 93-452)

P Teacher Attrition and Migration (Issue Brief, NCES 92-148)

Video

P America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession

Methods

P 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical

Report, NCES 96-089)

P An Exploratory Analysis of Nonrespondents in the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing

Survey (NCES 96–338)

P Design Effects and Generalized Variance Functions for the 1990–91 Schools and

Staffing Surveys (SASS) Volume I—User’s Manual (NCES 95–342I)

P Design Effects and Generalized Variance Functions for the 1990–91 Schools and

Staffing Surveys (SASS) Volume II—Technical Report (NCES 95–340II)

P Quality Profile for SASS: Aspects of the Quality of Data in the Schools and Staffing

Surveys (Technical Report, NCES 94-340)

P 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical

Report, NCES 93-449)

P Modeling Teacher Supply and Demand, with Commentary (Research and Development

Report, NCES 93-461)
Appendix C

52 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

P 1987-88 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical

Report, NCES 91-127)

CD-ROMs

P Schools and Staffing Survey: 1993–94 Electronic Codebook and Public Use Data

P Schools and Staffing Survey: 1990–91 Electronic Codebook and Public Use Data

P Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 Microdata and Documentation

Questionnaires

P SASS and PSS Questionnaires 1993–1994 (NCES 94–674)

P SASS and TFS Questionnaires 1990–1991

P SASS and TFS Questionnaires 1987–1988

User*s Manuals

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume I: Survey

Documentation (NCES 93-144-I)

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume II:

Restricted-Use codebook (NCES 93-144-II)

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume III: Public-Use

codebook (NCES 93-144-III)

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume IV: Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA) Restricted-Use Codebooks: Administrator, Schools, and Teachers

(NCES 93-144-IV)

P 1991–92 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User*s Manual—Public-Use Version

(NCES 94-331)

P 1991–92 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User*s Manual—Restricted-Use Version

(NCES 94-478)

P 1988–89 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User*s Manual—Public-Use Version

(NCES 92-058)

Forthcoming User*s Manuals

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume I: Survey

Documentation
Appendix C

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 53

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume II: RestrictedUse Codebook

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume III: Public-Use

Codebook

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User*s Manual Volume IV: Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA) Restricted-Use Codebooks: Administrator, Schools, and Teachers

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume V: RestrictedUse Codebook Students’ Records

Conference Papers

P Using Classroom Instructional Process Items in National Center for Education Statistics

Study To Measure Student Opportunity to Learn: A Progress Report

P Heaven or Hell? The Teaching Environment of Beginning Teachers

P Using Opportunity to Learn Items in Elementary and Secondary National Surveys

P Characteristics of Public and Private School Teachers

P Characteristics of Mathematics and Science Teachers

P Teacher Training, Certification and Assignment

P Teacher Turnover: Patterns of Entry To and Exit from Teaching

P Moonlighting Among Public and Private School Teachers

P Characteristics of Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language Teachers

P Highlights of Minority Data from the Schools and Staffing Survey

P Teacher Incentive Research with SASS

P Teacher Salaries: Comparing States After Adjusting for Teacher Experience and

Education

P What are the Characteristics of Principals Identified as Effective by Teachers?

P Schools at Risk: Results of the 1987–88 Schools and Staffing Survey

P Destinations of Movers and Leavers: Where Do They Go?

P Classroom Environment and Support of Beginning Teachers: A Test of the “Crucible

versus Cradle” Theory of Teacher Induction
Appendix C

54 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

P Why do Teachers Leave Teaching? Reasons for Teacher Attrition from the Teacher

Followup Survey

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS

WP 94–01 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). Papers Presented at the Meetings of the

American Statistical Association

Section on Survey Research Methods, August 1992

a. “The Schools and Staffing Survey: Research Issues”

b. “The Schools and Staffing Survey: How Reinterview Measures Data Quality”

c. “Mail Versus Telephone Response in the 1991 Schools and Staffing Surveys”

d. “Questionnaire Research in the Schools and Staffing Survey: A Cognitive

Approach”

e. “Balance Half-Sample Replication with Aggregation Units”

f. “Characteristics of Nonrespondents in the Schools and Staffing Surveys’ School

Sample”

g. “Improving Reliability and Comparability on NCES Data on Teachers and Other

Education Staff”

Establishment Surveys Conference, June 1993

a. “Sampling Frames at the United States National Center for Education Statistics”

b. “Monitoring Data Quality in Education Surveys”

Section on Survey Research Methods, August 1993

a. “Generalization Variance Functions for the Schools and Staffing Surveys”

b. “A Bootstrap Variance Estimator for the Schools and Staffing Survey”

c. “Adjusting for Nonresponse Bias of Correlated Items Using Logistic Regression”

d. “Comparisons of School Locale Setting: Self-Reported Versus Assigned”

e. “Characteristics of Nonrespondents to the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey”

Social Statistics Section, August 1993

a. “Implicit Markets for Teacher Quality and School Attributes”

b. “Who Decides? Principals’ and Teachers’ Views on Decision-Making”

c. “Determinants of Pupil-Teacher Ratios at School Sites: Evidence from the Schools

and Staffing Survey”

WP 94–02 Generalized Variance Estimates for Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

WP 94–03 1991 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Reinterview Response Variance

Report

WP 94–04 The Accuracy of Teachers’ Self-report on Their Postsecondary Education:

Teacher Transcript Study, Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix C

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 55

WP 94–06 Six Papers on Teachers from the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey and

Other Related Surveys

a. “The Results of the 1993 Teacher List Validation Study (TLVS)”

b. “Designing the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS): Issues and Content)”

c. “Understanding the Supply of Elementary and Secondary Teachers: The Role of

the School and Staffing Survey and the Teacher Followup Survey”

d. “Teacher Retention/Attrition: Issues for Research”

e. “Reflections on a SASS Longitudinal Study”

f. “Whither Didst Thou Go? Retention, Reassignment, Migration, and Attrition of

Special and General Education Teachers in National Perspective”

WP 95–01 Schools and Staffing Survey: 1994. Papers Presented at the 1994 Meeting of

the American Statistical Association (95–01)

Estimation Issues in School Surveys

a. “Intersurvey Consistency in School Surveys”

b. “Estimation Issues Related to the Student Component of the SASS”

c. “Properties of the Schools and Staffing Survey’s Bootstrap Variance Estimator”

d. “Optimal Periodicity of a Survey: Sampling Error, Data Deterioration, and Cost”

Response and Coverage Issues in School Surveys

a. “Some Data Issues in School-Based Surveys”

b. “The 1991–92 Teacher Follow-up Survey Reinterview and Extensive

Reconciliation”

c. “Improving Coverage in a National Survey of Teachers”

d. “Improving the Coverage of Private Elementary-Secondary Schools”

Education Research Using the Schools and Staffing Surveys and the National

Education Longitudinal Study

a. “Adding Value to the Value-Added Educational Production Function

Specification”

b. “Teacher Quality in Public and Private Schools”

c. “Teacher Shortages and Teacher Quality”

d. “Work Experience, Local Labor Markets, and Dropping out of High School”

WP 95–02 QED Estimates of the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Deriving and

Comparing QED School Estimates with CCD Estimates

WP 95–03 Schools and Staffing Survey: 1990–91 SASS Cross-Questionnaire Analysis

WP 95–08 CCD Adjustment to the 1990–91 SASS: A Comparison of Estimates

WP 95–09 The Results of the 1993 Teacher List Validation Study (TLVS)
Appendix C

56 A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students

WP 95–10 The Results of the 1991–92 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) Reinterview and

Extensive Reconciliation

WP 95–11 Measuring Instruction, Curriculum Content, and Instructional Resources: The

Status of Recent Work

WP 95–15 Classroom Instructional Processes: A Review of Existing Measurement

Approaches and Their Applicability for the Teacher Followup Survey

WP 95–16 Intersurvey Consistency in NCES Private School Surveys

WP 95–17 Estimates of Expenditures for Private K–12 Schools

WP 95–18 An Agenda for Research on Teachers and Schools: Revisiting NCES’ Schools

and Staffing Survey

WP 96–01 Methodological Issues in the Study of Teachers’ Careers: Critical Features of a

Truly Longitudinal Study

WP 96–02 Selected papers presented at the meeting of the 1995 American Statistical

Association (96–02)

Overcoming the Bureaucratic Paradigm: Memorial Session in Honor of Roger

Herriot

a. “1995 Roger Herriot Award Presentation”

b. “Space/Time Variations in Survey Estimates”

c. “Out of the Box: Again and Again, Roger Herriot at the Census Bureau”

Design and Estimation Issues for School Based Surveys

a. “Improving the Coverage of Private Elementary-Secondary Schools”

b. “Improving GLS Estimation in NCES Surveys”

c. “Optimal Periodicity of a Survey: Alternatives under Cost and Policy Constraint”

d. “Properties of the Schools and Staffing Survey’s Bootstrap Variance Estimator”

Data Quality and Nonresponse in Education Surveys

a. “Assessing Quality of CCD Data Using a School-Based Sample Survey”

b. “Documentation of Nonresponse and Consistency of Data Categorization Across

NCES Surveys”

c. “Multivariate Modeling of Unit Nonresponse for 1990–91 Schools and Staffing

Surveys”

d. “Evaluation of Imputation Methods for State Education Finance Data”

e. “Variance Estimates Comparison by Statistical Software”

f. “Teacher Supply and Demand in the U.S.”
Appendix C

A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students 57

WP 96–05 Cognitive Research on the Teacher Listing Form for the Schools and Staffing

Survey

WP 96–06 The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) for 1998–99; Design

Recommendations to Inform Broad Education Policy

WP 96–07 Should SASS Measure Instructional Processes and Teacher Effectiveness?

WP 96–09 Making Data Relevant for Policy Discussions: Redesigning the School

Administrator Questionnaire for the 1998–99 SASS

WP 96–10 1998–99 Schools and Staffing Survey: Issues Related to Survey Depth

WP 96–11 Towards an Organizational Data Base on America’s Schools: A Proposal for the

Future of SASS, with Comments on School Reform, Governments, and

Finance

WP 96–12 Predictors of Retention, Transfer, and Attrition of Special and General

Education Teachers: Data from the 1989 Teacher Followup Survey

WP 96–15 Nested Structures: District Level Data in the SASS

WP 96–16 Strategies for Collecting Finance Data from Private Schools